192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
giujohn
 
  -1  
Mon 28 Nov, 2016 12:35 pm
@revelette2,
Are you being purposely obtuse or purposely argumentative?

Do you know of any states that have restricted free speech, free religion, or free press because the federal government doesn't have any laws regarding them?

The Constitution is the law. And when we get a supreme court that is not comprised of activist jurists but those who understand the original intent and once and for all without fear decide that the Second Amendment is a basic unalienable right no different than freedom of speech that will put an end to any states attempt to infringe that right by passing ridiculous restrictions on your right to keep and bear arms.
McGentrix
 
  0  
Mon 28 Nov, 2016 12:59 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

Would Joe the Plumber be unable to perform his job if appointed as secretary of HUD? The point is that Trump is making choices not based on optimum criteria for such an appointment. He's put political value first. It isn't about the quality or viability of a good education system and well-educated children. It's about consolidating political power, his own and that of the people around him. First instance of such a thing? No, of course not, though it is unusually blatant here. But that's the irrelevancy. That banks have been robbed before doesn't mean you chip in for the bank robber's get-away taxi. He's not draining the swamp, he's making it deeper.


I don't think your comparison is applicable here. The people being appointed are not random off the street people. They are educated and effective leadership to shape the policies that trump wants shaped. They are not political appointees to make sure Blatham is happy.

The people in Trump's cabinet are being chosen because they agree with Trump's view and campaign promises. It is unimportant and the left believes they are "qualified" or not. I doubt the left in America will be asked much of anything for the next two years at least.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  0  
Mon 28 Nov, 2016 01:05 pm
@blatham,
This is the part you should have highlighted
Quote:
The NRA’s priority is a federal law that would make gun-carrying permits issued in one state valid across the country, which would make carrying a concealed firearm across the country as easy as driving your car across state lines.


A background check in one state should be fine in any state and people passing through states like New Jersey should have no fear of being arrested for legally carrying a gun. I back this action 100% though I would prefer to see these things done at the state level. The Constitution details how the Federal Govt is supposed to work and so far I do not believe that the Federal Govt has interfered with the people's right to keep and bear arms. It's mostly a state law thing that is being used as a bludgeon against the people's rights.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  0  
Mon 28 Nov, 2016 01:35 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

Would Joe the Plumber be unable to perform his job if appointed as secretary of HUD? The point is that Trump is making choices not based on optimum criteria for such an appointment. He's put political value first. It isn't about the quality or viability of a good education system and well-educated children. It's about consolidating political power, his own and that of the people around him. First instance of such a thing? No, of course not, though it is unusually blatant here. But that's the irrelevancy. That banks have been robbed before doesn't mean you chip in for the bank robber's get-away taxi. He's not draining the swamp, he's making it deeper.


Once again you are claiming knowledge of Trump's motives and intentions in his appointnments that you obviously don't have. That is a deception.

Please illuminate us on just what are the "the optimum criteria" for such appointment and how you came top have that knowledge.
blatham
 
  1  
Mon 28 Nov, 2016 03:20 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
Besides you live safely in Canada so this is no concern of yours.
Best of luck with that recently-appearing rhetorical vector.

Quote:
'statism"

Couldn't resist. The point, of course, is the ease with which right wing orthodoxy veers from "local control!" to "federal control!". In this case, it's particularly egregious. I despise LaPierre who pockets a million bucks a year trying to turn the US into Somalia, lying through his teeth and scaring the bejesus out of stupid people. I mean, the guy is a jack-booted corporate thug (I think I have the phrase right there).
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Mon 28 Nov, 2016 03:27 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
Once again you are claiming knowledge of Trump's motives and intentions in his appointnments that you obviously don't have. That is a deception.

Please illuminate us on just what are the "the optimum criteria" for such appointment and how you came top have that knowledge.

Let's make a deal. Where you forward a response to me, I'll try to get to it in those instances where you aren't being purposefully obtuse.
revelette2
 
  3  
Mon 28 Nov, 2016 03:54 pm
@giujohn,
Gun regulations have already been ruled constitutional; Scalia answered that question already. So as long as states do not ban guns period, they can regulate gun sales without worrying about any federal laws to the contrary if that lawsuit passes.

Quote:
Here is Justice Antonin Scalia, writing the majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the Supreme Court reversed a long-held position and ruled that the Second Amendment did give Americans an individual right to own firearms. The court said the District’s ban on handguns in private homes went too far, but that regulation of gun ownership was compatible with the Second Amendment:


source

(underlined by me)

The lawsuit if successful forbids the federal government from interfering with a states decision on guns (keeping within the opinion above) so if California decides to put more restrictions on guns, they can do so. By the same token, some southern state like Texas can do away with all federal gun restrictions. It is a two sided sword.

Quote:
It’s going to be very tempting for most of the nation to celebrate such an affirmation of states rights, but it’s also important to realize that as the Supreme Court strikes down federal powers to pass gun laws, it simultaneously places those powers in the hands of state governments, and not all state governments were smart enough to mirror the natural right to bear arms reflected in the Second Amendment.

While recognizing the Second Amendment’s intent to outlaw federal gun control is undoubtably a good thing for the nation overall, I cannot pretend to have a crystal ball to foresee what that might mean on the state level, and what that may mean in states who refuse to treat their citizens as anything other than subjects.


source
blatham
 
  1  
Mon 28 Nov, 2016 04:16 pm
As I've been saying...
Quote:
Trump’s Koch administration
Despite past clashes — and looming policy disputes — the Koch brothers’ operation has allies in key positions on Trump’s team.
http://politi.co/2gzPCPM

Interesting little tidbit - Back in the early to mid 70s, I read a John Birch book titled None Dare Call It Conspiracy. A few weeks back, I was thinking about that book and to refresh my recollections, I visited the wikipedia entry on it and found that one of the two authors (who is now deceased) was the father of Politico's Michael Allen.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  1  
Mon 28 Nov, 2016 04:42 pm
@giujohn,
I dident have a bunch of cops who would lie their ass off for me when I got my tit in a ringer like most cops. I had a family to raise. When you know you can shoot some ones ass off and get away with it that isent courage its being a two faced a h.
RABEL222
 
  0  
Mon 28 Nov, 2016 04:45 pm
@blatham,
How about the FBI?
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -1  
Mon 28 Nov, 2016 05:19 pm
@layman,
I can't believe that this guy's main bitch is about about socialism for Wall Street and Trump allows him anywhere near the white house.

http://able2know.org/topic/355218-8#post-6311840
georgeob1
 
  0  
Mon 28 Nov, 2016 05:32 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

Let's make a deal. Where you forward a response to me, I'll try to get to it in those instances where you aren't being purposefully obtuse.


Nothing obtuse there at all. Neither of us knows what are the motives behind the actions of others. In the case of politicians they can indeed be an important question, and some speculation is both appropriate and inevitable. However when one speaks with certainty and forms an instant final judgment at the very outset of an sction, one has ventured into the land of B.S.

What are the "optimum criteria" in such a situation as an official appointment is very much a subject on which reasonable, informed people can disagree. Unilateral use of the term in a categorical judgment, such as yours, defies even the seven critrtia (sans brick) that you laid out.
0 Replies
 
giujohn
 
  0  
Mon 28 Nov, 2016 05:32 pm
@RABEL222,
Your tit in a ringer??? Well that's your first problem...stop that kinky stuff man.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  3  
Mon 28 Nov, 2016 05:42 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:

I can't believe that this guy's main bitch is about about socialism for Wall Street and Trump allows him anywhere near the white house.

http://able2know.org/topic/355218-8#post-6311840


This is about the only thing Bannon has said that I like.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Mon 28 Nov, 2016 08:55 pm
There will be lots more just like this:
Quote:
Roger Stone, the Republican strategist and campaign confidant of Donald Trump, suggested Monday without evidence that Hillary Clinton is more likely to face prosecution under the president-elect’s administration because her campaign is cooperating with Jill Stein’s recount effort.

Again offering no evidence, Stone told Steve Malzberg that “we have to presume” that the money funding the Stein campaign’s call for a recount is from billionaire donor George Soros or from Clinton, who lost the White House to Trump this month in a major upset.

“Now Hillary, I think, increases her chances of prosecution by acting this way,” Stone concluded.
http://politi.co/2fGopXn
Two aspects of note. First, the threat of prosecution (where people do not act in accordance with the wishes of Trump and allies. That's how authoritarians behave and these guys demonstrate continually that's is how they've behave.

Second, the propagandist suggestion that Soros money is facilitating the Stein initiative. No evidence for it but that's not in any way atypical (see Sunday's straight up lie from Trump re popular vote).

We really can't let these sorts of behaviors become normalized. How can it not end up any way but very bad if we do.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Mon 28 Nov, 2016 09:05 pm
@blatham,
That's how tyrants control countries. The voters do not seemed concerned about electing a tyrant for our president. ahhh, he's also a racial bigot, narcissist and scammer of many people and companies. A liar.
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Mon 28 Nov, 2016 11:33 pm
@blatham,
Remind me, which position in government does Roger Stone hold? Who cares what he says.
Brandon9000
 
  2  
Tue 29 Nov, 2016 04:52 am
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic wrote:

Donald trump has been diagnosed by many in the field of psychology!

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HucsIsKdNa8[/youtube]

No reputable psychologist or psychiatrist would diagnose someone without meeting him.
Brandon9000
 
  0  
Tue 29 Nov, 2016 04:53 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

Quote:
I believe it is fairly obvious that it was they, not their opponents as Sykes suggests who "were in a bubble" of their own making. Now when that self-deception is clearly revealed by the elkection result,

The election result where 2 million more American citizens voted for Clinton rather than Trump? And we'll note (along with CI) that Obama's approval rating among US citizens is now greater than that of Reagan at the same point.

Looks like his policies and political philosophy aren't too popular.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Tue 29 Nov, 2016 05:11 am
@McGentrix,
Quote:
Remind me, which position in government does Roger Stone hold? Who cares what he says.

Good point. Unimportant and irrelevant person. I suppose an analogue would be William Ayers or Jeremiah Wright.

But aside from such obvious snark, let's just quote Jim Geraghty from the National Review:
Quote:
It’s hard to overstate just how close Trump and Stone have been over the years. Their professional and personal relationship goes back more than three decades. Trump without Stone is akin to George W. Bush without Karl Rove or Barack Obama without David Axelrod.
http://bit.ly/2gBt2Xi
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 1.08 seconds on 11/25/2024 at 01:51:52